Early Christian Writings

[Root of Jesse]

I know you are just giving back the standard Catholic reply, but what the Bible actually says in that passage (if we do not cut it in half as you did) is that the HOUSEHOLD (i.e. people) of GOD are the supporters of the Truth, not some association.

How condescending...

Well, if you can so easily find only what you want to find in 1 Timothy, it's not surprising that you might misunderstand this book, too.

It's really funny that you folks like to accuse us of doing what you do yourself. Parsing the words to fit what you want it to mean. It's dangerous to do that, just look at Nancy Pelosi-she thinks the Bible says, and she thinks the Church agrees, that abortion is not a problem. Trouble is, it's just not true, on either point.

 

[Clearly]

I have to agree with the Catholic Root of Jesse regarding his earlier claim that Protestants do NOT simply take their doctrines from the bible, nor would this be a great advantage to them if they did since what we all do is layer an interpretation ONTO the early sacred texts. Individuals on the forum may read the same bible, yet come away with multiple differences in their doctrines and opinions as to what the same bible meant.

While we tend to use biblical texts to justify our various christian traditions, these various christian traditions have more to do with our own interpretation of Christianity, than with original and authentic christian traditions, and often are not what the early writers of sacred text meant.

This is perhaps one of the great strengths of a study of a vast number of early Judao-christian writings, including their diaries, letters, their early psalms, the earliest mishnas/commentaries, and other sacred texts is that when certain themes occur repeatedly, in vast numbers of texts that are separated by a great deal of time and space, then these are the themes that have a higher chance of representing orthodox traditions in early Judao-Christianity.

A study of such widespread themes are helpful in forming some clearer model of what early Judao-christianity might have been like; it's beliefs and what it's practices might have been. A study of the early texts also allows us to see what the early INTERPRETATIONS of current traditions were like, in comparison (and often in opposition) to modern christian INTERPRETATIONS of the Christian message.

Clearly
eineseseil

 

[Albion]

I have to agree with the Catholic Root of Jesse regarding his claim that Protestants do NOT simply take their doctrines from the bible, nor would this be a great advantage to them if they did since what we all do is layer an interpretation ONTO the early sacred texts. Individuals on the forum may read the same bible, yet come away with multiple differences in their doctrines and opinions as to what the same bible meant.

Same old mistake.

Yes, we do "use" something other than Scripture. We do not just open the book and wait until the words jump into our brains. We use common sense, reasoning, experience. We may refer to linguists so that we do not misunderstand the meaning of ancient expressions, etc. So do we "use" something other than Scripture? Yes, if you understand exactly what it meant by that.

But we do not make anything other than Scripture our source. Whatever faculties and aids we bring to the task of reading the Bible--our eyes, our knowledge of geography in knowing where the River Jordan is or where the flight into Egypt took the Holy Family, whatever--it is only Scripture that we look to for God's answers on doctrine.

By contrast, our Catholic friends, Eastern or Latin, use Scripture AND traditions. They derive some of their doctrines from this other source that they consider to be the equal of the word of God. We cannot adulterate God's Revelation in that way, not to mention that it is largely a hit and miss proposition since it is almost always impossible to reconstruct what the first generation after Christ actually did say on most of these matters.

 

[ranpleasant]

I know you are just giving back the standard Catholic reply, but what the Bible actually says in that passage (if we do not cut it in half as you did) is that the HOUSEHOLD (i.e. people) of GOD are the supporters of the Truth, not some association.

These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
1 Timothy 3:14-15

The passage is very very clear.

Well, if you can so easily find only what you want to find in 1 Timothy, it's not surprising that you might misunderstand this book, too.

I understand Sola Scriptura fairly well. I just don't believe it.

Ran

 

[Root of Jesse]

Same old mistake.

Yes, we do "use" something other than Scripture. We do not just open the book and wait until the words jump into our brains. We use common sense, reasoning, experience. We may refer to linguists so that we do not misunderstand the meaning of ancient expressions, etc. So do we "use" something other than Scripture? Yes, if you understand exactly what it meant by that.

But we do not make anything other than Scripture our source. Whatever faculties and aids we bring to the task of reading the Bible--our eyes, our knowledge of geography in knowing where the River Jordan is or where the flight into Egypt took the Holy Family, whatever--it is only Scripture that we look to for God's answers on doctrine.

By contrast, our Catholic friends, Eastern or Latin, use Scripture AND traditions. They derive some of their doctrines from this other source that they consider to be the equal of the word of God. We cannot adulterate God's Revelation in that way, not to mention that it is largely a hit and miss proposition since it is almost always impossible to reconstruct what the first generation after Christ actually did say on most of these matters.

Albion,
The traditions we consider equal to Scripture come from the same Apostles that authored Scripture. That's why they are thought to be equal. The Early Church Fathers are not considered part of Apostolic Tradition. Where they agree with Apostolic Tradition and Scripture, they agree, where they do not, they...don't.

Paul did much more than write letters, he preached. Someone wrote down, eventually, what Paul preached and did. Same with Peter, and all the apostles. They preached, authoritatively. They didn't stop to write it down, someone else did. That's what Apostolic Tradition is. Also, Apostolic Tradition never contradicts Scripture. That's one way to know that it's valid. If it contradicts, it doesn't stick...

 

[ranpleasant]

...it is only Scripture that we look to for God's answers on doctrine.

By contrast, our Catholic friends, Eastern or Latin, use Scripture AND traditions. They derive some of their doctrines from this other source that they consider to be the equal of the word of God. We cannot adulterate God's Revelation in that way, not to mention that it is largely a hit and miss proposition since it is almost always impossible to reconstruct what the first generation after Christ actually did say on most of these matters.

Albion

You keep trying to use the Bible to disprove Catholic doctrine but that begs a question. It is a historical fact that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church and that Catholic Bishops, lead by the Holy Spirit, judged what documents were or were not inspired. So why do you think the Catholic Church would put together a book that disproves its own doctrine? The truth is Catholic doctrine is more Scriptural based than any other Christian doctrine.

Ran

 

[Albion]

Albion

You keep trying to use the Bible to disprove Catholic doctrine

Do I? I'd say that I more often refer to church history to show that so-called Tradition isn't really traditional. Virtually every doctrine that's been up for discussion latetly has been one of these. When it comes to the doctrines that the RCC holds to that are clearly Biblical, there isn't much for me to oppose since my own church believes them, too.

but that begs a question. It is a historical fact that the Bible was put together by the Catholic Church and that Catholic Bishops, lead by the Holy Spirit, judged what documents were or were not inspired.

Give me a break. Please. It is not "a historical fact that" any of the attendees at those councils was "lead (sic) by the Holy Spirit." Whether we agree with what they decreed, or we disagree, the idea that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with it is completely a matter of faith and certainly not a historical fact!

As for saying that the Catholic Church put the BIble together, bear in mind two things about that.

1. There were no denominations at that time (aside from the Gnostics and other really unorthodox groups), so most of today's churches can and do claim descent from those people.

2. Even if it were the case that your church alone deserves credit for tha...what difference does it make? None.

The Bible got defined as real revelation. That done, it's the Bible that matters, not the group of theologians who said so.

Your theory is like asking us to pay homage to Beethoven but not play his music. Whoever defined the books of the Bible, it's still the Bible that convey's God's will...by the conviction of those very men! If it were not, you wouldn't be putting this point to me in the first place.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Do I? I'd say that I more often refer to church history to show that so-called Tradition isn't really traditional. Virtually every doctrine that's been up for discussion latetly has been one of these. When it comes to the doctrines that the RCC holds to that are clearly Biblical, there isn't much for me to oppose since my own church believes them, too.

Well, if you interpret Church History like you interpret Scripture, meaning through Protestant eyes, I understand.

Give me a break. Please. It is not "a historical fact that" any of the attendees at those councils was "lead (sic) by the Holy Spirit." Whether we agree with what they decreed, or we disagree, the idea that the Holy Spirit had anything to do with it is completely a matter of faith and certainly not a historical fact!

As for saying that the Catholic Church put the BIble together, bear in mind two things about that.

1. There were no denominations at that time (aside from the Gnostics and other really unorthodox groups), so most of today's churches can and do claim descent from those people.

meaning that there were denominations..., but you're right, we accept you as our Christian brothers.

2. Even if it were the case that your church alone deserves credit for tha...what difference does it make? None.

None except for the fact that we wouldn't have a consistent canon of scripture.[/quote]
The Bible got defined as real revelation. That done, it's the Bible that matters, not the group of theologians who said so.

So why, do you think, didn't they include the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas in the canon?

Your theory is like asking us to pay homage to Beethoven but not play his music. Whoever defined the books of the Bible, it's still the Bible that convey's God's will...by the conviction of those very men! If it were not, you wouldn't be putting this point to me in the first place.[/quote]
The point is that the Catholic Church was given the deposit of faith, to guard and preserve the faith whole and intact. It's the fact that those men to whom that responsibility was given carried it out, that's what matters. Also it was their responsibility to define the context, and interpret from that what was meant. And once again, we believe that they did that, guided by the Holy Spirit.
You should know, Albion, that each of the Apostles was given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and was to pass it down to those bishops he ordained. That's why we know that the concilar bishops historically had the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Albion]

You should know, Albion, that each of the Apostles was given the gift of the Holy Spirit, and was to pass it down to those bishops he ordained. That's why we know that the concilar bishops historically had the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

And you should know that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not infallibility. In addition, these bishops would be horrified to learn that they, rather than the Bible that they labored to correctly arrange, had become the object of devotion for later churchmen.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And you should know that the gift of the Holy Spirit is not infallibility.

Actually, the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Pope and the Magisterium is, exactly, infallibility.

 

[Albion]

Actually, the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Pope and the Magisterium is, exactly, infallibility.

That's what the Vatican propaganda office would like everyone to think, but the gift of the Holy Spirit is still not and never has been infalliblity.

Have a good one.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's what the Vatican propaganda office would like everyone to think, but the gift of the Holy Spirit is still not and never has been infalliblity.

Have a good one.

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). He promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, (the magisterium of the Church): "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).

I understand that you disagree, but the idea is from Scripture, and has always been the case. You have a good one, too.

 

[Clearly]

[FONT=&quot]Root of Jesse # 56 I honestly don't see where Protestants and Catholics are much different on their adherence to Scripture alone.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly # 62 I have to agree with the Catholic Root of Jesse regarding his earlier claim that Protestants do NOT simply take their doctrines from the bible, nor would this be a great advantage to them if they did since what we all do is layer an interpretation ONTO the early sacred texts. Individuals on the forum may read the same bible, yet come away with multiple differences in their doctrines and opinions as to what the same bible meant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]While we tend to use biblical texts to justify our various christian traditions, these various christian traditions have more to do with our own interpretation of Christianity, than with original and authentic christian traditions, and often are not what the early writers of sacred text meant.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Albion # 63 Yes, we do "use" something other than Scripture. We do not just open the book and wait until the words jump into our brains. We use common sense, reasoning, experience. We may refer to linguists so that we do not misunderstand the meaning of ancient expressions, etc. So do we "use" something other than Scripture? Yes, if you understand exactly what it meant by that.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But we do not make anything other than Scripture our source...... By contrast, our Catholic friends, Eastern or Latin, use Scripture AND traditions. [/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]Albion, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can I first agree with your specific sentiment underlying the claim that Protestants often attempt to “connect” their religious worldviews to a biblical text moreso than the Catholics seem to (at least in these recent threads), and the Protestants are often more accurate and successful at doing this. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, the Catholic Doctrine regarding the eucharist as being the actual body of Jesus rests on the greek word "εστιν"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]which doesn’t have an equivalent nor does it exist in the hebrew or aramaic. We’ve also seen that the Catholic tradition to Petrine authority does not have it’s origin in ANY biblical text but rather the biblical text is very loosely and awkwardly used (or abused) in the attempt to justify this extra-biblical claim. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ironically, the onlookers note that Protestants tend to create multiple, conflicting theologies using the same bible. It is obvious to the onlookers that the bible cannot really be teaching multiple, conflicting doctrines at the same time. So, while one protestant may teach a certain doctrine and call it “biblical”, another competing protestant may teach another incompatible and competing doctrine and call it “biblical” as well! What is often being offered by these competing protestants is not an original Christian doctrine, but rather they are offering us their specific INTERPRETATION of a specific set of quotes as “biblical doctrine”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thus, my point was that the protestants often use and abuse the biblical text in a similar fashion as the Catholics do and they do it for the very same reasons (i.e. in support of their personal traditions).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, the protestant doctrine of “creation from nothing” (ex-nihilo creation) did not originate in the biblical text NOR was it inherited from the earliest Judao-Christians (since the earliest Judao-Christian descriptions were of a material creation). However, once later Christian groups adopted this specific worldview of “creation from nothing”, the biblical text is then scoured for texts used to then justify this belief. Thus the belief is called “biblical” in the same way the Catholics use the term “biblical” to their claim petrine authority and to justify many of their beliefs. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]TEXTUAL INTERPRETATIONS GENERATED BY “COMMON SENSE, REASONING AND EXPERIENCE” ARE INCONSISTENT AND OFTEN ARBITRARY[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Your admission of that the protestant use of “something other than Scripture” has much wider; deeper and much more common applications than you described. It is these multitude of “things" "other than scripture” that I am describing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Protestants may claim to use “common sense, reasoning; and experience” (as you suggested ) in their attempts to apply meaning to biblical texts. Still, their common sense, reasoning and experience is not superior to Catholic common sense, catholic reasoning and catholic experience.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Also, the differing sets of Protestants disagree on biblical doctrines because they have differing “sense” of what is commonly meant by texts; they have differing qualities of reasoning; and they have differing experiences and background. They come to different, but often firm conclusions as to what a textual reference means. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] Also, I believe individuals often do not USE Common sense, reasoning and experience in the development and support of many of their doctrines. For example : The Protestant doctrine of Ex-nihilo Creation (i.e. Creation out of “nothing&#8221 did not have it’s origin in “common sense” because it has never been “common sense” to suppose that material things were made of “Nothing”. It was “non”sensical, rather than a sensical doctrine. Neither did this doctrine have it’s origin in normal "reasoning" since it was not particularly reasonable to suppose matter is made of "nothing". Nor was it based on “experience” since no one has experienced seeing something material being made of “nothing”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Protestants using these somewhat arbitrary and differing personal methods to assign meaning to the text create an incredibly wide variety of belief systems based on readings of the same text.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Using the bible they create Christian theologies where salvation is obtained by simple belief alone; others create a doctrine of salvation by works; still others create a theology of salvation with both faith and belief. (e.g. baptism necessary vs baptism unnecessary; trinitarian vs Unitarian, etc, etc) And, importantly, ALL of these differing belief systems underlying the myriads of arguments, may be created by using similar bibles.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]ACCEPTANCE OF PRE-FORMED TRADITION IS A STANDARD METHOD OF INTRODUCTION TO BOTH PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC THEOLOGIES[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Young children rarely obtain their initial christian worldview by their own readings of the bible but instead, they often are introduced to a specific Christian pattern before they can read. They most often are introduced to the pre-formed tradition by their parents and / or by other influential people (e.g. ministers, friends, etc.).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The vast majority of protestants adopt consensus theology by accepting pre-existing traditions rather than from generating matching theologies from personal study. For example, the specific theological details Luther created are NOT typically discovered by individuals in separate study who then find others who then discover they agree on all doctrinal details and create congregations. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Specific [/FONT][FONT=&quot]worldview concensus of Protestant groups are most often taught as a pre-formed set of beliefs to individuals who then find agreement with them just as happens in Catholic Theology. Both Protestants and Catholics typically are exposed to pre-formed traditions as they examine scriptures which they then find “justifies” their traditions and teachings.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For example, a Lutherans minister doesn’t simply read the bible chronologically to a proselyte and hope the proselyte will see distinct, mature Lutheran theology from unstructured reading. Rather he typically will offer Lutheran Theology, then offer Lutheran commentary and patterned scriptures and which justify and support the Theology. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This seems very similar to Catholicism. Catholics generally FIRST are taught and then believe in the Tradition that Peter gave apostolic authority to a roman bishop and then attempt to find textual justification to support the belief. One generally does NOT FIRST find a textual description of Peter giving authority to a roman bishop and THEN create a tradition.[/FONT]




THE EARLY JUDAO-CHRISTIAN TEXTS GIVE US INSIGHT INTO WHAT THE EARLIEST JUDAO-CHRISTIANITIES MAY HAVE LOOKED LIKE; THEIR DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES

[FONT=&quot]The advantage of Early Christian writings; their diaries, their hymns, the mishnas and commentaries; their novels, and their sacred texts is that all of these can be used as evidence of what early christian beliefs were and they form part of the context surrounding early Judao-Christian beliefs and their interpretation of “biblical” concepts. I do not think the religious concepts developed by either the early Roman Catholic theologians OR the later Protestant theologians offer any advantage over the concepts taught by the earliest Judao-Christians in their descriptions of their Christianity.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
clearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]tweieiacvn
[/FONT]

 

[Albion]

[FONT=&quot]Albion # 63 Yes, we do "use" something other than Scripture. We do not just open the book and wait until the words jump into our brains. We use common sense, reasoning, experience. We may refer to linguists so that we do not misunderstand the meaning of ancient expressions, etc. So do we "use" something other than Scripture? Yes, if you understand exactly what it meant by that.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]But we do not make anything other than Scripture our source...... By contrast, our Catholic friends, Eastern or Latin, use Scripture AND traditions. [/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]Albion, [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Can I first agree with your specific sentiment [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Absolutely! Feel free to agree with me as much as you want.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]underlying the claim that Protestants often attempt to “connect” their religious worldviews to a biblical text moreso than the Catholics seem to (at least in these recent threads), and the Protestants are often more accurate and successful at doing this. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For example, the Catholic Doctrine regarding the eucharist as being the actual body of Jesus rests on the greek word "εστιν"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]which doesn’t have an equivalent nor does it exist in the hebrew or aramaic. We’ve also seen that the Catholic tradition to Petrine authority does not have it’s origin in ANY biblical text but rather the biblical text is very loosely and awkwardly used (or abused) in the attempt to justify this extra-biblical claim. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Ironically, the onlookers note that Protestants tend to create multiple, conflicting theologies using the same bible. It is obvious to the onlookers that the bible cannot really be teaching multiple, conflicting doctrines at the same time. So, while one protestant may teach a certain doctrine and call it “biblical”, another competing protestant may teach another incompatible and competing doctrine and call it “biblical” as well! What is often being offered by these competing protestants is not an original Christian doctrine, but rather they are offering us their specific INTERPRETATION of a specific set of quotes as “biblical doctrine”. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Thus, my point was that the protestants often use and abuse the biblical text in a similar fashion as the Catholics do and they do it for the very same reasons (i.e. in support of their personal traditions).[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

It seems to me that the real point there has been missed once again. The fact that many Protestant churches come up with many different interpretations of Scripture doesn't prove a thing.

What's at issue is the source of our guidance, what we place our trust in. The Catholics use human theories and folklore, which we Protestants consider to be improper and unreliable--not to mention the absolutely unacceptable notion of it being a second revelation from God, standing equally alongside his revelation in Scripture.

How many different interpretations of each (Scripture or Tradition) are made by whomever it is is completely irrelevant, nor does one incorrect interpretation render all others incorrect. Making that one's justification for opposing Sola Scriptura is illogical, pure nonsense, a "talking point," and nothing more.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]Your admission of that the protestant use of “something other than Scripture” has much wider; deeper and much more common applications than you described. It is these multitude of “things" "other than scripture” that I am describing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Protestants may claim to use “common sense, reasoning; and experience” (as you suggested ) in their attempts to apply meaning to biblical texts. Still, their common sense, reasoning and experience is not superior to Catholic common sense, catholic reasoning and catholic experience. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

No one said it did. Once again, the argument is systematically perverted by the Catholic side intent upon misrepresenting the "Protestant" approach.

For one thing, there is no Protestant claim, per se.

There are thousands of churches that are put together for convenience and called Protestant which represent a huge range of belief and practice. They are not to be treated as peas in a pod...except that it serves the debater's purpose to do so because by that he can say 'See? They don't agree! They must all be wrong." I am very sorry if you fell into that trap yourself.

Second, your premise is wrong anyway. Cathoic reasoning is just as capable as Protestant reasoning. The issue once again is WHAT IS IT that we are applying our reasoning and learning to--God's word or Man's?

[/FONT]

 

[Root of Jesse]

[FONT=&quot]Absolutely! Feel free to agree with me as much as you want.[/FONT]



[FONT=&quot]It seems to me that the real point there has been missed once again. The fact that many Protestant churches come up with many different interpretations of Scripture doesn't prove a thing.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What's at issue is the source of our guidance, what we place our trust in. The Catholics use human theories and folklore, which we Protestants consider to be improper and unreliable--not to mention the absolutely unacceptable notion of it being a second revelation from God, standing equally alongside his revelation in Scripture.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How many different interpretations of each (Scripture or Tradition) are made by whomever it is is completely irrelevant, nor does one incorrect interpretation render all others incorrect. Making that one's justification for opposing Sola Scriptura is illogical, pure nonsense, a "talking point," and nothing more.[/FONT]




[FONT=&quot]No one said it did. Once again, the argument is systematically perverted by the Catholic side intent upon misrepresenting the "Protestant" approach. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For one thing, there is no Protestant claim, per se. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There are thousands of churches that are put together for convenience and called Protestant which represent a huge range of belief and practice. They are not to be treated as peas in a pod...except that it serves the debater's purpose to do so because by that he can say 'See? They don't agree! They must all be wrong." I am very sorry if you fell into that trap yourself.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Second, your premise is wrong anyway. Cathoic reasoning is just as capable as Protestant reasoning. The issue once again is WHAT IS IT that we are applying our reasoning and learning to--God's word or Man's?[/FONT]

Very nice mischaracterization. Both you and Clearly.

First off, the doctrine of the Eucharist is not just based on one word. It starts there, but when you gather the wheat, the doctrine of the Eucharist is all over both the Old and New Testaments. And so is the doctrine of the Papacy.

If there was no scriptural basis for them, they would not be doctrines. It's that simple. We have Tradition which is the thread which pulls all the pieces into one whole cloth. That Tradition, the verbal teaching of the Apostles who were divinely inspired, is just a portion of the evidence.

 

[Clearly]

The non Catholic Clearly said in post # 73 “.... Protestants tend to create multiple, conflicting theologies using the same bible. It is obvious to the onlookers that the bible cannot really be teaching multiple, conflicting doctrines at the same time. So, while one protestant may teach a certain doctrine and call it “biblical”, another competing protestant may teach another incompatible and competing doctrine and call it “biblical” as well! What is often being offered by these competing protestants is not an original Christian doctrine, but rather they are offering us their specific INTERPRETATION of a specific set of quotes as “biblical doctrine”.

Thus, my point was that the protestants often use and abuse the biblical text in a similar fashion as the Catholics do and they do it for the very same reasons (i.e. in support of their personal traditions).”

Albion responded in post #74 : It seems to me that the real point there has been missed once again. The fact that many Protestant churches come up with many different interpretations of Scripture doesn't prove a thing.




The FACT that Protestant churches have failed to create a coherent, logical concensus Christian theology PROVES that Protestant churches have failed to create a coherent, logical, concensus Christian theology.


This inability to come to a concensus on what many of the very simple and basic Christian doctrines are, has resulted in religious movements characterized by a great deal of infighting and disharmony among themselves. If individuals will be known as disciples of Christ partly because they will “love one another” (jn 13:35) , then this infighting represents a very inefficient system of producing disciples of Christ.

This Protestant inability to create concensus regarding basic doctrines can be compared to the wonderful coherent, logical, and consistent doctrinal themes described in the earliest Judao-Christian writings that describe the orthodox Earliest Judao-christian beliefs. While these beliefs are referred to in biblical texts, the theory of sola scriptura has not been especially useful in helping Christians discover and understand many of the basic early Judao-Christian doctrines.

In contrast, the simple process of reading early Christian diaries; their hymns; their synogogal prayers; their early sacred texts and mishnas provide doctrinal context which then can be applied to the biblical text for greater understanding. For example : though pre-mortal council themes are in the bible, they are not illuminated well and are very likely passed over as a “confusing bit of text” without the context of prior description of what such texts meant to the early Judao-Christians beforehand. Some references in the Biblical text are no longer connected to the supporting text and so outside material MUST be referred to in order to understand what the biblical text refers to.

Even older Christian theologies such as the Roman Catholics have little residual knowledge of nor ability to describe such themes from their own storehouse of traditions among their average members. What hope does a Protestant have to understand detailed history if they limit their stream of data to a very small and narrow band of knowledge? Sola Scriptura is not enough to provide any in-depth and detailed knowledge and understanding of the earliest themes which formed the contextual basis of Existence and Salvation for Early and authentic Judao-Christians. Instead, the moderns who will limit their historical data streams to a dribble, will have to remain content with yet more incoherent and illogical and incomplete personal theories regarding history.

Limiting historical data is not the way the historian does history. This is NOT to say Christians cannot have a relationship with Christ or that they cannot discover and learn to live higher moral laws or cannot learn gratitude for the sacrifice of Jesus, or cannot receive salvation without such data.

But it means that, as historians, they cannot have the greater historical knowledge and understanding of what the earliest historical Judao-Christians believed and taught about the profoundly important questions of God’s ultimate motives and intent in carrying out his plan to create and populate the earth; What man is to accomplish inside of God’s plan that could not have been accomplished by any other method; the nature of Lucifer’s role in a pre-earth heaven and details regarding his fall; the origin and nature of evil as characterized by Lucifer becoming satan; his motives for revenge upon Adam (not vengeance per se, but re-venge). The purpose underlying the giving of Moral law.

In short, there are many, many very basic themes that the early Judao-Christians taught and understood in a different and more detailed manner than later evolutions of Christian doctrines which, when compared to modern Christian theories, seem more coherent, more logical, more detailed, and a more internally consistent Christian theology than the multiple later theories. It is in these ways that the early Judao-christian writings, their diaries, their hymns, their mishnas, their histories, their sacred texts, etc are all important to the historian who seeks to understand what the earliest christians taught and believed.

Clearly
twtweiviit

 

[Clearly]

Root of Jesse :

I'm sorry I was not more clear but it would have distracted from my main point.

My point was made in agreement with Albion's claim that Catholics do not seem to connect their doctrines with the biblical text as often nor as well as protestants. I believe he is correct in this specific claim if the recent threads are to be the evidence.

My comment rested upon the points that we do not HAVE the original record of what Jesus and the apostles actually said, so we do not know what the actual words were. Yet we DO KNOW that Jesus did NOT, and could not have said "this IS my Body" or "this IS my Blood" (which biblical reference is one of the main reasons Catholic Theologians developed their version of the eucharist).

One cannot SAY "this IS" as a literal sentence in aramaic or Hebrew. (unless one assumed Jesus was speaking Greek, in which case he could have used the equivalent εστιν...) It is a translational necessity of Greek that required the creation and insertion of a verb in that sentence. Early translators simply used εστιν rather than to leave it blank (as would have sufficed in the semetic). Since other versions are based on Greek, the error perpetuated.

Clearly

 

[Root of Jesse]

Root of Jesse :

I'm sorry I was not more clear but it would have distracted from my main point.

My point was made in agreement with Albion's claim that Catholics do not seem to connect their doctrines with the biblical text as often nor as well as protestants. I believe he is correct in this specific claim if the recent threads are to be the evidence.

My comment rested upon the points that we do not HAVE the original record of what Jesus and the apostles actually said, so we do not know what the actual words were. Yet we DO KNOW that Jesus did NOT, and could not have said "this IS my Body" or "this IS my Blood" (which reference one of the main reasons Catholic Theologians developed their version of the eucharist).

One cannot SAY "this IS" as a literal sentence in aramaic or Hebrew. (unless one assumed Jesus was speaking Greek, in which case he could have used the equivalent εστιν...) It is a translational necessity of Greek that required the creation and insertion of a verb in that sentence. Early translators simply used εστιν rather than to leave it blank (as would have sufficed in the semetic). Since other versions are based on Greek, the error perpetuated.

Clearly

To answer in Jeopardy style...What is estin?
This is why it is dependent on Tradition to understand what Jesus meant. In John 6, why would the followers of Jesus walk away and return to their former lives if he didn't tell them they must eat His body?
1 Cor. 11:27-29 - in these verses, Paul says that eating or drinking in an unworthy manner is the equivalent of profaning (literally, murdering) the body and blood of the Lord. If this is just a symbol, we cannot be guilty of actually profaning (murdering) it. We cannot murder a symbol. Either Paul, the divinely inspired apostle of God, is imposing an unjust penalty, or the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Christ.

 

[Albion]

Very nice mischaracterization. Both you and Clearly.

First off, the doctrine of the Eucharist is not just based on one word. It starts there, but when you gather the wheat, the doctrine of the Eucharist is all over both the Old and New Testaments. And so is the doctrine of the Papacy.

Very imaginative.

If there was no scriptural basis for them, they would not be doctrines. It's that simple.

Not convincing, considering that you've been ouspoken against Scripture Alone and in favor of making dogma from traditions instead of Scripture.

 

[Albion]

Albion responded in post #74 : It seems to me that the real point there has been missed once again. The fact that many Protestant churches come up with many different interpretations of Scripture doesn't prove a thing.

The FACT that Protestant churches have failed to create a coherent, logical concensus Christian theology PROVES that Protestant churches have failed to create a coherent, logical, concensus Christian theology.

This statement couldn't be more wrongheaded. There is no reason to suppose that any combination of Protestant churches has any particular reason to come together on doctrine. They are not, never were, the same church divided into warring factions. You are talking about different churches with different histories, different origins, and different beliefs and practices. To criticize them in this way makes no more sense than saying that because the Roman Catholic Church and the Amish haven't created a coherent, logical consensus, both are proven wrong. It's nonsense, proving nothing.